IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.5039/2018(KLR-RES) BETWEEN SMT M. SARASA D/O M MUNISWAMY REDDY W/O SRI SHAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT No.376, 3RD CROSS MSR LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560037 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE - 560009 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2 BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE-560 009 3. TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL -562 106 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOUND AT ANNEXURE-G AND FURTHER ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING 2ND RESPONDENT FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED:12.12.2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOUND AT ANNEXURE-G AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is impugning the notice dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure ‘G’ to the petition) issued in proceedings No.RRT(2)(A)C.R.322/08-09 by the second respondent, namely, Special Deputy Commissioner-2, Bengaluru South sub-division, Bengaluru.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner of the land measuring to an extent of 2 Acres in Sy. No.156/16 situate at Hulimangala village, Jigani hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 26.11.1986 from one Sri P. Jayaram, who in turn is stated to have purchased the said land from one Muniyappa @ Muniga under registered sale deed dated 29.08.1958. The petitioner has referred to suo motu proceedings in case No.KSC.ST.74/87-88 initiated by Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, Bangalore, under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the basis of the report of respondent No.3 – Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk. In the said proceedings, one Sri Hanuma, his wife and children were petitioners and four persons including the petitioner herein were respondents. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 14.05.1992, dropped the said proceedings against the petitioner herein and three other persons holding that the petitioner herein had purchased the land measuring 02 Acres in Sy. No.156/16 after the non-alienation period prescribed under the grant and that there was no violation of the provisions of the Act.
3. Subsequently, Sri Mariyappa and Pillappa said to be the legal heirs of the original grantee filed an application seeking for resumption of the said land. Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South sub-division, by his order dated 15.02.1996 had set aside the sale made in favour of the petitioner herein and had restored the land in question to the said applicants. The same was subject matter of challenge in appeal No.KSC:ST:1:96-97 preferred under Section 5(A) of the Act by the petitioner herein before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, who by his order dated 16.01.1998 (Annexure ‘C’ to the petition), allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 15.02.1996. Being aggrieved by the order of Special Deputy Commissioner, Sri Mariyappa and Sri Pillappa preferred writ petition in W.P. No.7042/1998 before this Court. Learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition while upholding the order of Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, dated 16.01.1998.
4. When the matter stood thus, Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru East Taluk and Anekal Taluk on the basis of report of Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk, dated 28.12.2008 to the effect that land in Sy. No.156/16 measuring 02 Acres was Government land and the name of the petitioner herein had been illegally entered in the revenue records in respect of the said land, initiated proceedings in No.RRT(2)/CR/322/2008-09 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KLR Act’) against the petitioner herein and she was issued notice dated 25.09.2009 in the said proceedings. In response to the same, the petitioner filed her objections. The Special Deputy Commissioner after verifying the records submitted by the respondent (petitioner herein) by his order dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petition) held that she was in possession of the land and accordingly, dropped the said proceedings against her and ordered to continue her name in the revenue records in respect of the said land.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the said proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the K.L.R. Act, were dropped against her by order dated 08.02.2012 passed by Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru East Taluk and Anekal Taluk, notice dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure ‘G’ to the petition) has been issued by respondent No.2 stating that fresh enquiry would be conducted in the matter. It is contended by the petitioner that when once the matter has been disposed of by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru East Taluk, by order dated 08.02.2012, the question of reviewing the said order and conducting fresh enquiry by respondent No.2 does not arise.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the material on record.
7. At this juncture, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents would bring to the notice of this Court that the person, who passed the order dated 08.02.2012 in proceedings No.RRT(2)/CR/322/2008-09 was not competent to hear and dispose of the same pursuant to the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos.51551-51552/2013 (KLR-RES-PIL). In the said writ petitions, Division Bench has observed that subsequent to the notification No.RD 400 ASD 2011 dated 10.10.2011, the Special Deputy Commissioners appointed pursuant to the Government Order Nos.RD.711, RD 290 and RD 709 were not required to exercise powers under Section 136(3) of the K.L.R. Act. Thereby, orders passed by Special Deputy Commissioners under Section 136(3) of the K.L.R. Act from 10.10.2011 onwards were not technically correct. In that view of the matter, all the orders that were passed by Special Deputy Commissioners under Section 136(3) of the K.L.R. Act, were ordered to be reviewed by the very same authority and in the aforesaid background, the impugned notice dated 12.12.2017 vide Annexure ‘G’ to the petition is issued by the second respondent.
8. Accepting the said submission of learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court would observe that the question of interfering with the impugned notice does not arise for consideration at this stage.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
10. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma